• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Super Super Zoom (1 Viewer)

On paper it certainly looks very good indeed with IS0 sensitivity up 5000 (!), "BrightCapture Technology" for low light, good close focus, optical image stabilisation, competitive pricing and so on. One thing though, does the wide angle starting point of the lens mean that the 'real world' magnification will actually be x18? I'm an utter novice when it comes to technical issues, but I recall being told the the claimed magnification of such lenses isn't always what it seems, John
 
John Cantelo said:
I'm an utter novice when it comes to technical issues, but I recall being told the the claimed magnification of such lenses isn't always what it seems,
Click to expand...

Yes, there often marketing tricks at work with "zoom" figures given for cameras. There are two ways to think of "zoom" - true optical zoom that yields increased magnification and resolution, and fake apparent "zoom" defined by the frame size. Often camera companies will claim that simple cropping of the frame size is "zoom", when there is no optical zoom involved and no increase in resolution. This is the dreaded "digital zoom" and what Panasonic terms "EZ" mode. These are cropping modes, instead of zoom. They can be useful, but should NOT be confused with true zoom. (If you crop down to a single pixel you can claim something like 50000x zoom!) Shame on them!

As Keith said above, the optical zoom of this model appears to be a genuine 18x. There are probably the usual digital "zoom" cropping mode beyond that, as well.
 
According to the DC review:
'There will be support for conversion lenses, both wide and telephoto. The wide lens (WCON-07) will lower the focal range to 19.6 mm, while the tele lens (TCON-17) boosts it to a whopping 856.8 mm!'

-- so my TCON-17 can live on!
 
Vs Sony Alpha

This gives me an interesting problem. I am in the market for a DSLR but don't have the funds to buy what I REALLY want (champagne ideas-beer money).
I had just about decided on the Sony Alph 100 with a Sigma zoom-say 70-300/400. Now this comes out.
The only draw back I can readily see with the Olympus is the lower pixels 7,000 as against 10,000 for the Sony.
I was also going to say the maximum length of 500mm but if you can convert to 865mm ??
I certainly like the idea of being able to carry it around as any other 'small' digital because I combine bird watching with walking.
Can anyone see any problems or reasons to prfer one above the other ??
 
Last edited:
David Smith said:
This gives me an interesting problem. I am in the market for a DSLR but don't have the funds to buy what I REALLY want (champagne ideas-beer money).
I had just about decided on the Sony Alph 100 with a Sigma zoom-say 70-300/400. Now this comes out.
The only draw back I can readily see with the Olympus is the lower pixels 7,000 as against 10,000 for the Sony.
I was also going to say the maximum length of 500mm but if you can convert to 865mm ??
I certainly like the idea of being able to carry it around as any other 'small' digital because I combine bird watching with walking.
Can anyone see any problems or reasons to prfer one above the other ??
Click to expand...

A DSLR is going to have much better resolution and image quality for the same equivalent focal length. You have to balance features, image quality, portability and affordability according to your own needs....
 
Thanks for that. I am now going to show my ignorance:-
I assume DSLR stands for digital single lense reflex. Is the Olympus not classed as a DSLR even though it is a fixed lense ? If so, why should the resolution etc be less ? I can understand that 'low end' P&S would normally be lesser quality but should this automatically be the case for the Olympus and if so would the difference be obvious to the eye.
Regards
Dave
 
Well, it appears that Olympus finally got it right! I've been wanting to replace my C-750 for awhile now and have been very tempted by the Canon S3IS. But I kept waiting to see who would come out with what. I'm glad I waited! Hope it tests as good as it looks.
 
David Smith said:
Thanks for that. I am now going to show my ignorance:-
I assume DSLR stands for digital single lense reflex. Is the Olympus not classed as a DSLR even though it is a fixed lense ? If so, why should the resolution etc be less ?
Click to expand...

I'm a camera novice as well, and I'll admit that part was actually speculation on my part. There isn't any law that says that a point-and-shoot HAS to perform less well than a DSLR, but the DSLR is a larger more expensive camera which is usually built with higher quality components, more sensitive sensors, and fitted with larger higher quality lenses. Some slight edge in performance would be expected for the same equivalent focal length. Nevertheless, if the camera is designed well and used properly the differences could be so small you wouldn't care.
 
John Cantelo said:
One thing though, does the wide angle starting point of the lens mean that the 'real world' magnification will actually be x18? I'm an utter novice when it comes to technical issues, but I recall being told the the claimed magnification of such lenses isn't always what it seems, John
Click to expand...
What others have answered already is accurate - the lens really is 18x. The misleading part comes in when the public assumes that 18x means 18 times more magnification than your eye view. As you surmised in your question, the actual highest magnification is NOT 18x normal view because it starts at wide angle, not at normal view.

This is not really the camera maker's fault or them trying to lie. It is just how folks incorrectly interpret the info.
 
the human eye sees things at a camera equivalent of 50-55mm...so 504mm in this 18x Olympus talk is approx 10x mag to the human eye. The Panasonic FZ50 is not too far behind (420mm) about 8x. And yes, it's the difference between the wide angle (28mm) and telephoto (504mm) that creates the 18x. The FZ50 starts at 35mm...so it's a 12x.
 
swamp_rattler said:
the human eye sees things at a camera equivalent of 50-55mm...so 504mm in this 18x Olympus talk is approx 10x mag to the human eye. The Panasonic FZ50 is not too far behind (420mm) about 8x. .
Click to expand...
In this not subject to the sensor size - e.g the 50-55mm is with a 35mm sensor. could well be wrong (I usually am!)
 
David Smith said:
Thanks for that. I am now going to show my ignorance:-
I assume DSLR stands for digital single lense reflex. Is the Olympus not classed as a DSLR even though it is a fixed lense ? If so, why should the resolution etc be less ? I can understand that 'low end' P&S would normally be lesser quality but should this automatically be the case for the Olympus and if so would the difference be obvious to the eye.
Regards
Dave
Click to expand...

The difference in image quality between a digital SLR and a superzoom camera like the Olympus, is the size of the sensor and therefore the size of the individual pixels. Small chip camera like the Olympus have much smaller pixels and that leads to more noise and less accurately recorded light. The larger sensor and larger pixels of a digital SLR tend to much higher image quality. There is much more to image quality than the number of pixels and many small chip cameras have in fact put too many pixels on their small chips and negatively affected image quality. Small chip cameras can still take great pictures (I use one myself) but they have their limitations (usually they need good light) that have to be regonized.
 
Thanks RAH & Swamp Rattler - this was what I rather inarticulately wanted to point out. It certainly looks a fine camera, but I don't think it's time to upgrade my Panosonic FZ30 yet (that Leica lens is very good!), John
 
Roy C said:
In this not subject to the sensor size - e.g the 50-55mm is with a 35mm sensor. could well be wrong (I usually am!)
Click to expand...
No, you are mixing up the specifications of DSLR lenses, which are interchangeable, with the specifications for FIXED-LENS cameras ("point-and-shoots"; "super-zooms").

When the manufacturer specifies the mm for a fixed-lens camera, it specifies it in 35mm camera terms - i.e. it does the conversion to the 35mm equivalent for you. For example, with my Fuji E900, the specs say it has a 32mm-114mm lens. But, in fact, if you look closely at the camera, the lens really says "7.2. - 28.8mm", which is pretty meaningless. The 32-114mm spec has already been converted to 35mm equivalency for you, to be more meaningful.

So, you may wonder, why don't lens manufacturers do the same thing with lenses for DSLRs? Why do they specify the real numbers and require you to do the conversion (e.g. multiply by 1.6 or whatever)? Well, the answer is that the lens can be used on different cameras, and since they don't know what you'll be using it on, they have no choice but to give you the actual numbers.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

G
OM-1 with Panasonic Leica 100-400
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Jim M.
J
james holdsworth
Looking for a good super zoom compact camera
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
PaulCountyDurham
P
F
Good bird watching camera to film 4K videos with zoom
Replies
6
Views
2K
Floridabirding
F
P
Advice for getting back into bird photography - Camera and Zoom lens
Replies
7
Views
1K
MelospizaMelodiaFan
MelospizaMelodiaFan
ammadoux
Olympus vs Nikon
Replies
0
Views
3K
ammadoux
ammadoux

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top